To feel unsettled about the school yard this morning?

[CantGiveAnyMore]

I do have anxiety, and way overthink things!

Normally in the yard in the morning, there are members of staff outside, for about 15 minutes before bell goes, then the teachers all come out and take their class in.

This morning there was no one in the yard at all, and the door wasn't opened until a good 5 minutes after the bell goes. Then only 3 teachers came out. And sent the other children in without their teachers.

The staff who did come out did not look happy!

Both my children's teachers came out, but I still feel very uneasy and unsettled. Am I overeacting or would this make you feel uneasy too?

I'd have assume the person on the 15 min duty forgot they were on and the rest of the staff were bit miffed at having to come out and find their classes.

Or there was a meeting that over ran - possibly routine or possibly good news that delayed them all or something that needs dealing with.

Perhaps you could list all the mundane or good thing that could have results in a slight change in routine.

At my Dc school they don't have anyone on the playground - doors open at various locations they go in - at the door open at different times - and it does upset some of the working parents when the are late.

Just a staff meeting in order to pour some more random shit on the staff. A bollocking or some more stupid directives from on high or something of that nature.

Claw- did the newsagent have any extra tentacles visable? They might be useful for reaching high shelves.

No and that's the worst of it! He's obviously passing as human and nobody else suspects!

Be afraid, very afraid.

No police? No helicopters? No SWAT teams?

I need to see some hard evidence before I assume the worst...

Our teachers were all in a meeting yesterday morning, about new safeguarding procedures that mean their private lives will be delved deeper into than previously. I would imagine this is happening nationwide (certainly everywhere in our county)

Many staff very unhappy about what is IMO an unreasonable intrusion. Anyone who will "fail" the new test will be very worried indeed, but nothing at all for parents to worry about.

How would one go about hijacking a school? Hold a glue gun to the head teacher's temple and demand they fly the building into a different local authority?

Trif, I appreciate you might not be able to say but if you can, what information are they looking for?

Goodness.

Hijacking? That would have never crossed my mind.

I suppose the fact there were lots of cars in the car park suggests a meeting of some sort?

If it was ofsted I doubt they would have just sent 3 teachers out in the yard. They would want to be seen as more efficient than normal not the reverse.

Apparently it's Law, so I don't suppose there's any harm saying so. In fact, apparently it's been law since 2009 but no-one's been doing it right.

I don't have the paperwork in front of me, so I'm paraphrasing but on top of the normal DBS checks etc on the member of staff themselves, each staff member now has to sign a declaration to the effect that they don't share a household with anyone who has convictions that mean they're not considered safe around children. If anyone is unable to confirm this, it's immediate suspension pending investigation, which could lead to dismissal.

The household includes lodgers, parents, adult children, spouse, anyone living at the house.

Maybe this isn't news to everyone and other areas have been doing it for years but it hasn't gone down well here. Not because we have loads of people who will fail but because it doesn't seem right to be able penalise staff for the actions of their parent/lodger etc who will never be in school.

So a teacher could be suspended for being a victim of domestic violence? Because someone who has convictions for domestic violence presumably wouldn't be considered safe around children?

Try not to worry op. your kids' teachers would not have taken them into any unsafe situation. It could be any of the stuff suggested on this thread but unlikely to be something you/your kids need to worry about.

I'm surprised those checks weren't in place already? Certainly in my job I had to declare who my partner was and if I recall correctly, if I was aware of any close friends or family who were known to the police.

To be honest, I think it is an important background check.

I think the violence has to be against a child but essentially, yes that's how it was put to us.

and not just teachers Opal, everyone from dinner ladies and TA's, even volunteers

I am glad to hear these things are being considered frankly. My Mother was stalked relentlessly by a man who was already a convicted sexual predator and had stabbed a previous girlfriend.

His partner (they lived close to my Mother in a small village) worked as a TA at the local school.

She might have been another of his victims but something felt very wrong about this man walking her to work every morning and meeting and greeting children as they walked to school.

Hmm I'm a volunteer and this is news to me! Though my husband also has a check for school, so don't know if its covered that way?

I would assume bad news

On the day a child from ds's year died one teacher spent the d tire day in the staff room crying. We were emailed around lunchtimes to tell us to be prepared as the children would be told just before home time.

Awful awful day

Could be a safeguarding incident but not necessarily at school. Or anything really.

Maybe Claw, but it won't actually achieve anything because no actual checks are being done. The staff member signs to say "to the best of their knowledge...." there's no reason for concern and that's the end of it.

Ah. I suppose then that in the event of "something" happening due to their partner's behaviour, the staff member would also be in trouble?

But better to do something than do nothing? Prime example of why this check could beneficial is Maxine Carr. Granted, Huntley was also employed by the school but he was a member of staff's partner.

Obviously if you are unaware of a conviction/been investigated you can't tell them what you don't know but the onus should be in the employee to reveal that if asked.

Yes, but would Maxine Carr, who was under IH's spell have reported it anyway? It seems more about being seen to do something, than actually doing something IYSWIM. And IH presumably passed his own safeguarding checks anyway, so there was nothing to report at the time.

Anyway, this has turned into something of a hijack! My point was that there are countless things that could have caused upset at an over running staff meeting that are of no concern at all for parents.

Who knows if she would but it's a slightly moot point as if I recall correctly, he didn't have convictions so if that is what is being asked of teachers then she wouldn't have had an obligation to say.

I'm slightly perturbed that teachers with a good understanding of safeguarding can't see why these checks are a good thing? I would certainly hope that my daughters school would be aware if her teacher lived with someone who had a conviction for possessing indecent images of children, or for supplying drugs.

Using the Maxine Carr situation as a very basic example, if the school were aware of her partners previous history then they could put precautions in place rather being ignorant to the possible risk to students.